That earth is getting (slightly) warmer is scientific fact. That its gonna have catastrophic consequences (like cities being underwater....etc) is based on faith, because there's no evidence thats going to happen anytime soonI can see the comparison. End of the world. Repent and change your ways. Rules how to act. Very superficial though considering that science is based on evidence, not just faith
I believe the global warming movement is based on exaggerations.But despite the doomsday hysteria of some radical proponents, the science heavily backs up the fact that human produced CO2 has a major role in the planet warming. The only debate is how much, how quickly, and how negative the changes will be if we don't do something
Once again,...why would I offer more points to debate,...you can't even make an intelligent comment on any of the points I've already presented,...you simply just reply with more childish insulting,...and nothing more.Because you aren't adding value. You're wasting everyone's time. If you bothered to educate yourself a little you might be able to contribute.
So for clarity the value I brought to the debate was that I'm familiar with and cited the science.Once again,...why would I offer more points to debate,...you can't even make an intelligent comment on any of the points I've already presented,...you simply just reply with more childish insulting,...and nothing more.
The only "value" you add is,...read some nature magazine.
That's not debating,...that's running away.
And how could I be waste everyone's time,... members laughing at you,...is not wasting their time.
Ya you could probably shit on me,...your' full of it,... feel better now.Actually you have and you know how badly I'll shit on you. You have repeatedly claimed the experts don't know what they're talking about based on nothing. But sure, if you want to be the modern version of the flat earth society then go right ahead. It just shows what a farce you are every time you try and pretend that science supports your view.
There are no credible experts who think CO2 doesn't cause global warming. If there were you would be able to point to studies by them in top journals.Ya you could probably shit on me,...your' full of it,... feel better now.
basketcase,...you just morphed in to a fuji,... childish insults and no actual comment on my points.
I have not stated the "experts" don't know what they are talking about.
The last go around with your hero,...was that I simply copy and pasted a recognised "expert" climate organisation's take on the most prominent green house gas,...and his response,...I lied.
So who's pretending,...???
Simply stating that anybody who disagrees with you and fuji's selected "experts",...by presenting other "experts" disagreement has to be wrong,...is not debating.
Simply stating that the some "experts" are right without any actual adult comment,...is useless.
The "science" you "brought to the debate" was just more you repeating the same not relative "science" over and over again,...just more fuji avoidance.So for clarity the value I brought to the debate was that I'm familiar with and cited the science.
Thats not true at all. I told you a long time ago you're a fucking bullshitter, fuji, and you just proved it again.There are no credible experts who think CO2 doesn't cause global warming. If there were you would be able to point to studies by them in top journals
The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus'
Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist.
The American Meteorological Society, working with experts at George Mason University and Yale University, emailed all AMS members for whom the AMS had a mailing address (excluding associate members and student members) and asked them to fill out an online survey on global warming. More than 1,800 AMS meteorologists filled out the survey, providing a highly representative view of scientists with meteorological, climatological, and atmospheric science expertise.
The central question in the survey consisted of two parts: “Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?” Answer options were:
Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human. The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.
Importantly, the survey addressed merely one of the necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis. The survey did not ask whether temperatures are warmer than those of the Medieval Warm Period or other recent warm periods, did not ask whether temperatures are warming at a rapid pace, did not ask whether recent warming has been harmful or beneficial and did not ask whether transforming our energy economy would stop global warming or pass a cost/benefit test. Certainly, many of the 52 percent of meteorologists who believe humans are primarily responsible for some warming would nevertheless question some of these other necessary components of a human-induced global warming crisis.
In short, the news for global warming activists is far worse than the survey results showing barely half of meteorologists believe humans are primarily responsible for some global warming. The reality is when you factor in the other necessary components of a global warming crisis, clearly less than half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe in the frequently asserted global warming crisis.
Mind you, this is a survey of scientists with targeted atmospheric science expertise and who have demonstrated the skills and experience to qualify for AMS membership. This isn’t a poll of chemists or engineers, nor is it a position statement put together by a dozen or so members of a scientific group’s bureaucracy; it is a poll of more than 1,800 atmospheric scientists
Show me a link to a study in a credible journal. Surveying people who don't know enough about the topic to get published is not useful.Thats not true at all. I told you a long time ago you're a fucking bullshitter, fuji, and you just proved it again.
Only 52% of scientists surveyed believe global warming is entirely manmade:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...lobal-warming-climate-consensus/#42d48c0d18c3
I guarantee you they know a lot more then you do, fuji.Surveying people who don't know enough about the topic to get published is not useful
There is no reason to believe a sociologist or a medical researcher knows jack shit about climate change and yet they count as a scientist.I guarantee you they know a lot more then you do, fuji.
And no, I'm not gonna spend hours searching for journals. Do it yourself.
You said no credible experts denied global warming is manmade, and you've been proven wrong again
Once again,...do you actually believe the other experts that disagree with your discredited nature magazine,... would get their articles published that shoots down decades of theories,...???Show me a link to a study in a credible journal. Surveying people who don't know enough about the topic to get published is not useful.
You are punching yourself in the face again. Your claims that Nature is not credible eliminate you from serious conversation.Once again,...do you actually believe the other experts that disagree with your discredited nature magazine,... would get their articles published that shoots down decades of theories,...???
Face reality for once fuji.
And you are wrong again. John Christy, a scientist who I've been following ever since Climategate, has published a study that claims global warming is hugely overblown:There is no reason to believe a sociologist or a medical researcher knows jack shit about climate change and yet they count as a scientist.
You aren't going to search the journals because it would be futile, there are no credible studies that dispute CO2 causes global warming
Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.
But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.
“I detest words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” he said. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”
Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.
Such charts — there are others, sometimes less dramatic but more or less accepted by the large majority of climate scientists — are the essence of the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other.
“Almost anyone would say the temperature rise seen over the last 35 years is less than the latest round of models suggests should have happened,” said Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a California firm that analyzes satellite climate readings.
“Where the disagreement comes is that Dr. Christy says the climate models are worthless and that there must be something wrong with the basic model, whereas there are actually a lot of other possibilities,” Dr. Mears said. Among them, he said, are natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean.
Dr. Christy has drawn the scorn of his colleagues partly because they believe that so much is at stake and that he is providing legitimacy to those who refuse to acknowledge that. If the models are imprecise, they argue, the science behind them is compelling, and it is very likely that the world has only a few decades to stave off potentially catastrophic warming.
And if he is wrong, there is no redo.
“It’s kind of like telling a little girl who’s trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there’s a substantial chance that she’ll be killed,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “She might make it. But it’s a big gamble to take.”
By contrast, Dr. Christy argues that reining in carbon emissions is both futile and unnecessary, and that money is better spent adapting to what he says will be moderately higher temperatures. Among other initiatives, he said, the authorities could limit development in coastal and hurricane-prone areas, expand flood plains, make manufactured housing more resistant to tornadoes and high winds, and make farms in arid regions less dependent on imported water — or move production to rainier places.
Dr. Christy’s scenario is not completely out of the realm of possibility, his critics say, but it is highly unlikely.
Disregarding your childish insulting,...and the fact that your nature magazine is not credible,...You are punching yourself in the face again. Your claims that Nature is not credible eliminate you from serious conversation.
Let me know when you find somebody credible enough to get published in a high quality journal. Until then your posts are just variations on farting.And you are wrong again. John Christy, a scientist who I've been following ever since Climategate, has published a study that claims global warming is hugely overblown:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/...ds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?mcubz=0
Yes there is some warming, and yes man contributes SLIGHTLY to global warming, but its nowhere near to what Al Gore and his doomsday sayers have predicted. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Its simple common sense, just look at our winters over the last 50 years, they didnt get considerably warmer, they stayed about the same
You're refuting you own credibility claiming Nature isn't credible. You've reduced yourself to the absurd.Disregarding your childish insulting,...and the fact that your nature magazine is not credible,...
Answer this,..."Once again,...do you actually believe the other experts that disagree with your nature magazine,... would get their articles published that shoots down decades of theories published in it",...???
Hell, you can experiment at home about the thermal expansion of water if you want. It's not hard to do.That earth is getting (slightly) warmer is scientific fact. That its gonna have catastrophic consequences (like cities being underwater....etc) is based on faith, because there's no evidence thats going to happen anytime soon
Funny that a guy complaining about faith based belief admits his views is simply a belief.I believe the global warming movement is based on exaggerations.
Having said that, we need to get off oil because it is a pollutant and its eventually going to run out anyways
Key word: Entirely.Thats not true at all. I told you a long time ago you're a fucking bullshitter, fuji, and you just proved it again.
Only 52% of scientists surveyed believe global warming is entirely manmade:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...lobal-warming-climate-consensus/#42d48c0d18c3
You're refuting you own credibility claiming Nature isn't credible. You've reduced yourself to the absurd.
So you have no adult response,...as usual,...and expected.Originally Posted by FAST
Disregarding your childish insulting,...and the fact that your nature magazine is not credible,...
Answer this,..."Once again,...do you actually believe the other experts that disagree with your nature magazine,... would get their articles published that shoots down decades of theories published in it",...???
The adult response is that Nature has the highest level of credibility anywhere, while you do not.So you have no adult response,...as usual,...and expected.
Anyhow,...I have proved to you that your nature magazine is not credible,...but that is NOT the point,... is it fuji,...!!!
Plus I gave a link to an opposing view,...but you would not even read it, or make an adult comment on it...so talking about credibly,...!!!
